Chennai Court April 2016 Judgments
Browse smarter
Open an 18-section brief on any judgment
Structured AI Brief in seconds on any result - plus Semantic Search when you need meaning, not just keywords.
- AI Brief & Ask
- Semantic AI Search
- Devil's Bench
Credentials emailed - log in to pick up where you left off.
V. Selvaraj Vs. A. Subburaj and Another
Court: Chennai Madurai
Decided on: Apr-07-2016
(Prayer: Second Appeal is filed under Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure against the Judgment and Decree dated 30.10.2010, made in A.S.No.31 of 2010, on the file of the Sub Court, Virudhunagar, reversing the Judgment and Decree dated 22.06.2010, made in O.S.No.24 of 2008, on the file of the District Munsif Court, Virudhunagar.) 1. This appeal is directed against the judgment and decree dated 30.10.2010, made in A.S.No.31 of 2010, on the file of the Sub Court, Virudhunagar, reversing the Judgment and Decree dated 22.06.2010, made in O.S.No.24 of 2008, on the file of the District Munsif Court, Virudhunagar. 2. The factual matrix relevant for deciding the second appeal is as below:- The suit properties originally belonged to one Alagarsamy Naicker and after his death, it was devolved upon his two sons, namely Kandasamy Naicker and Subburaj, the first respondent herein and they were in possession and enjoyment of the entire properties till 1985. During 1985, there was a oral partit...
The Selvavinayagar Co-Operative Handloom Weavers Production Vs. P.A. V ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-07-2016
P.R. Shivakumar, J. 1. Respondent No. 1 has entered appearance through counsel. The revision has been filed by a third party to the suit in O.S. No. 121 of 2011 on the file of I Additional District Judge, Tiruvallur, after suffering an order of dismissal of an application to get impleaded as a party defendant in the suit filed by the first respondent herein for specific performance against the second respondent herein. 2. The above said suit was filed for the relief of specific performance based on an agreement for sale dated 19.11.2009 allegedly executed by the second respondent herein in favour of the first respondent herein in respect of the suit property. 3. The revision petitioner is a Co-operative Society and it claims that the suit property belongs to it. Hence, the revision petitioner filed the above said application I.A. No. 6 of 2016 under Order I Rule 10(2) CPC to get itself impleaded as a party defendant in the said suit. The application was resisted by the first respondent...
Sudhir Khanna and Others Vs. The State, Rep. By the Inspector of Polic ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-07-2016
(Prayer: Criminal Original Petition is filed under Section 482 of Cr.P.C., to call for the records of the first respondent in FIR No.560 of 2015 dated 25.06.2015 and Quash the FIR No.560 of 2015 registered against the petitioners for an offence under Section 409 IPC, as being an abuse of process of law, untenable in facts and circumstances.) The petitioners herein have come forward with the present Criminal Original Petition seeking to call for the records of the first respondent in FIR No.560 of 2015 dated 25.06.2015 and Quash the FIR No.560 of 2015 registered against the petitioners for an offence under Section 409 IPC, as being an abuse of process of law, untenable in facts and circumstances. 2. The learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioners would submit that the second respondent was having 18 loan accounts in the Kotak Mahindra Bank Limited, out of which one is a mortgage loan account, one is a business loan account and others are commercial vehicle loan accounts. It is ...
K.K. Ramesh Vs. The Chief Secretary, State of Tamil Nadu, Secretariat, ...
Court: Chennai Madurai
Decided on: Apr-07-2016
(Prayer: Writ petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India to issue a Writ of Mandamus, directing the respondent to publish all the Government Department Orders (G.O.) Notifications and Rules, Circulars in Internet, and only then the aggrieved people, will get quick remedy from their sufferings, by considering the petitioner's representation, dated 17.02.2016. S. Manikumar, J. Mr.K.K.Ramesh, party-in-person, has prayed for a Writ of Mandamus, directing the respondent to publish all the Government Orders, Notification and Rules, Circulars in Internet, to enable the public, to know the welfare schemes and other matters of public interest. It is his grievance that when an aggrieved person moves the competent authorities, under the Right to Information Act, 2005, information is not furnished, then and there. 2. We are not inclined to accept the grievance expressed by the petitioner, for the reason that the Right to Information Act, 2005, empowers the authority to decide, a...
P.S.P.K.J. Somu Vs. The District Registrar, Tuticorin and Another
Court: Chennai Madurai
Decided on: Apr-07-2016
(Prayer:Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, to issue a Writ of Mandamus to direct the first respondent herein to direct the 2nd respondent to conduct the elections for the office bearers of the 2nd respondent society after deleting Rule 7 B of its Bye-laws in so far as it requires a proposal from one of the office bearers of the society for applying to its membership and after finalizing the list of members by the authority appointed by this Honourable Court which after holding an enquiry into the list of member of the 2nd respondent society both existing members and members who have applied for its membership but to be enrolled had finalized such list and pass further orders as this Court may deem fit proper.) 1. The learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner states that the writ petition has become infructuous, in view of the subsequent order passed by this Court in C.R.P(MD).1839 of 2012 dated 28.10.2013. 2. In view of the submissions made by the...
The Managing Director, Tamil Nadu State Transport Corporation Kumbakon ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-07-2016
(Prayer: This appeal is filed under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 against the Judgment and decree dated 30.04.2014 made in M.C.O.P.No.197 of 2010, on the file of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Subordinate Judge, Mannardkudi.) 1. This Civil Miscellaneous Appeal has been preferred along with a petition in M.P.No.3 of 2015 to condone the delay of 332 days. Since the learned counsel appearing for the Transport Corporation has conceded to the award passed by the Tribunal, the main appeal itself is taken up at CMASR stage itself. 2. It is a case of fatal. The respondents being the wife, daughters, minor child and mother have filed the claim application claiming compensation to the tune of Rs.9,00,000/- by stating that on 10.02.2005, at about 10.15hrs., when the deceased was riding his motorcycle bearing registration No.TN-49-C-9424 along with one Senthilkumar, in Melapanakkattangudi, at that time, the driver of the bus bearing registration No.TN-49-N-1271, came in a rash ...
Pakkiri Vs. Saraswathi and Others
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-07-2016
(Prayer: Civil Revision Petition filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India against the fair order of the learned Principal District Munsif, Cuddalore dated 29.10.2015 made in O.S.No.159 of 2015.) 1. This matter stands listed today for admission. The submissions made by Mr.R.Gururaj, learned counsel for the petitioner are heard. Certified copy of the impugned order and copies of the other documents produced in the form of typed set of papers are also perused. 2. The plaintiff in O.S.No.159 of 2015 pending on the file of the Court of Principal District Munsif, Cuddalore is the petitioner herein. The defendants are the respondents herein. The petitioner in the revision/plaintiff in the above said suit filed the suit for specific performance of an agreement for sale alleged to have been incorporated in an unregistered sale deed dated 02.06.2015. The said unregistered sale deed was produced along with the plaint as the document, based on which the suit came to be filed. The learn...
Periyasamy Vs. State rep by The Inspector of Police, Coimbatore Distri ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-07-2016
(Prayer: Appeal is filed under Section 374 of the Code of Criminal Procedure against the judgment passed by the learned Principal District and Sessions Judge, Coimbatore in S.C.No.247 of 2012 dated 12.06.2013.) S. Nagamuthu, J. 1. The appellant is the sole accused in S.C.No.247 of 2012 on the file of the learned Principal District and Sessions Judge, Coimbatore division, Coimbatore. He stood charged for offence under Section 302 I.P.C. By judgment dated 12.06.2013, the trial Court convicted him under Section 302 I.P.C. and sentenced him to undergo imprisonment for life and pay a fine of Rs.10,000/- and in default to undergo rigorous imprisonment for three months. Challenging the said conviction and sentence, the appellant is before this Court with this appeal. 2. The case of the prosecution in brief is as follows: 2.1. The deceased in this case was one Mrs.Kuppammal. The accused is her husband. The marriage between them was held 25 years prior to the occurrence. After the marriage, the...
Rengaramanaunjam Vs. The Assistant Engineer (North), Operation and Mai ...
Court: Chennai Madurai
Decided on: Apr-07-2016
(Prayer: Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, to issue a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus to call for the records of the first respondent vide his communication dated 25.09.2015 in Lr.No/V.Mu.Po/Vo/The. Kallu/Ko-viva/A.No.134/15 and quash the same and consequently direct the first respondent to provide change over switch to the borewell of the petitioner comprised in S.F.No.114/7 of Silarpatty village at once and pass further orders as this Court may deem fit and proper.) 1. Today, when the matter is taken up for hearing, learned Counsel appearing for the first respondent filed a counter affidavit. 2. It is seen from the paragraphs 3 and 4 of the counter that the Department has categorically stated that for change over switch to the borewell, unless the consent from the other co-owners is obtained, the first respondent cannot give it. 3. Therefore, the petitioner and the other legal heirs have to settle the dispute in the manner known to law. As far as ...
The Director General of Police, Tamil Nadu, Chennai and Another Vs. R. ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-07-2016
(Prayer: Writ Appeal filed under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent, against the order dated 26.02.2013 and made in W.P.No.23475 of 2011 by the learned Judge of this Court.) M. Venugopal, J. 1. The Appellants/Respondents 1 and 2 have focused the instant Writ Appeal before this Court as against the order dated 26.02.2013 in W.P.No.23475 of 2011 passed by the Learned Single Judge. 2. The Learned Single Judge while passing the impugned order dated 26.02.2013 in W.P.No.23475 of 2011 (filed by the Respondent/Petitioner) at paragraph 5 had observed the following: 5.The petitioner seems to be prosecuting the matter from the beginning and the petitioner's mother was made to understand that her application for appointment on compassionate ground was pending with the Director General of Police. Therefore, the respondents cannot now harbour that the petitioner has approached the authorities seeking appointment on compassionate ground very belatedly. The petitioner in fact seems to have produced the...
- ‹ Prev
- 56
- 57
- 58
- 59
- 60
- 62
- 63
- 64
- 65
- 66
- Next ›
- Last »